Instigator / Pro
6
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Topic
#20

Is MSG a problem?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
21
Better sources
2
14
Better legibility
4
7
Better conduct
0
7

After 7 votes and with 43 points ahead, the winner is...

David
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
49
1485
rating
91
debates
46.15%
won
Description

No information

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

PLAGIARISM: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Is_MSG_bad_for_you

With pro's R1 dropped for that reason, combined with one third of the remainder getting into cons masturbatory habits, this really was a case of no contest.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Arguments: This goes to Con, as he had more thought out arguments and shown that MSG was never proven to have averse effects on people.

Sources: Con.

Conduct: Pro had a very interesting vocabulary and Con remained professional.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro's sources ranged from weak to disreputable. Pro pushed weaker arguments and claims. Pro failed to convincingly undermine Con's sources. It is unsound to suggest that because the FDA is capable of fault, pseudoscientific misconception should be given free reign. Pro resorted to needless personal attacks.

"I always think it's a sign of victory when they move on to the ad hominem." -- Hitchens

Con consistently cited more credible and authoritative sources, Con's arguments and scientific information were consistently more on point, Con did not call anyone a Janus-faced wanker. Full points.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

I prefer to avoid casting my opinion on any matter which mainstream scientific experts have already deeply investigated except by directly citing relevant professional sources, for doing so arrogantly implies that I am as qualified as those experts to independently evaluate the issue.

In terms of who presented superior content, Con immensely outgunned his opponent on all battlefields except perhaps spelling and grammar. They made heavy usage of trustworthy sources and treated the opponent with relative respect, despite opposing accusations of being a "Janus-faced wanker." Con furthermore relentlessly dissected and refuted his opponent's arguments through better-formatted and thus more readable text.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

I am quite sure that the issue with the links from Pro are due to tech illiteracy and not due to actually unreliable links. For instance the first URL he posts is broken and this is because I am sure he tried to type out an ending that would make it into a pdf. He meant to link to this: https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/130/4/1007S/4686662 on top of that his second link is impossible to get more than the abstract of as the study is private to non-registered university students. I am not going to give a 'more reliable sources vote' to Pro but what I will do is say they had worse source formatting and choice despite the sources being reliable.

Pro is actually correct, just like lactose, MSG has been very harmful to people with such food intolerances and the harms of it to people with an intolerance to it are severe and life-quality-reducing by significant margins. They will have constant diarrhoea among many other issues. The issue is that to those lacking Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) or MSG-specific intolerance, MSG is actually not that much of an issue to them (and Con focused entirely on this group in a cunning manner).

I will say this: I agree 100% with Pro and predict MSG to be removed from all foods by the year 2300 but for now not enough anti-MSG articles are mainstream and the harms are hidden especially in MSG-heavy nations like China and South Korea where government-party-sponsoring corporations sell products covered in the stuff.

Pro loses conduct for not only unnecessarily claiming that Con used fallacious sources but saying the following:

"You are a Janus-faced wanker"
" the rodent literature."

The rodent literature is almost ad hominem and the first quote is verbal abuse of Con.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con far and away had better arguments showing that MSG for the most part is safe, and that people who claim to have sensitivity towards MSG in actual trials have indicated that they mostly do not. The sources con uses for their arguments are also strongly recognized as reliable and fair sources, pro failing abysmally to challenge the sources as unreliable when given the opportunity. Pro's conduct was also quite poor towards the end of the debate, spelling and grammar not much of an issue. Easy win.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con provided the most reliable sources with respect to MSG's affects on humans.

Con couched their arguments in a more organized and relevant fashion, making them more convincing.

Con's formatting and grammar were better.

Con automatically has better conduct, as Pro devolved to hurling unwarranted insults.

Con wins on all points.